Since we’ve been on a medical marketing kick this week, let’s catch up to what The Wall Street Journal reported last week:
“Authorities in some U.S. states have become more aggressive in accusing drug makers of deceptive marketing, widening the potential liability for an industry that has shelled out billions of dollars to settle investigations led by the federal government.
…some states have chosen to go it alone, a strategy that has resulted in hefty single-state awards and settlements in recent years.
“More states feel empowered to bring these kinds of actions solo,” said David Hart, an assistant attorney in charge of the financial fraud and consumer-protection section of the Oregon Justice Department.”
States that have filed lawsuits against drug makers include:
| State | Companies | Drugs | Lawsuit Details |
| Arkansas | Johnson & Johnson | Risperdal | J&J is appealing a judge’s $1.2 billion penalty assessed in 2012 after a jury found the company violated state laws in its marketing of Risperdal. The appeal is pending in the Arkansas Supreme Court. |
| Kentucky | GlaxoSmithKline | Avandia | Kentucky’s attorney general sued Glaxo in February, alleging that the company misrepresented the safety of diabetes-drug Avandia. The lawsuit is pending. |
| Louisiana | Johnson & Johnson | Risperdal | A lawsuit with allegations similar to the Arkansas case resulted in a $258 judgment against J&J in 2010. The judgment was upheld by one appellate court and is pending before the Louisiana Supreme Court. |
| Maryland | GlaxoSmithKline | Avandia | Maryland’s attorney general sued Glaxo in February in state court, making allegations similar to the Kentucky case. The lawsuit is pending. |
| Mississippi | Sanofi, Bristol-Myers | Plavix | Mississippi’s attorney general sued Sanofi and Bristol-Myers last year, claiming they falsely promoted Plavix as being superior to aspirin and didn’t properly disclose that the drug doesn’t work as well in some people. The lawsuit was moved to federal court. |
| South Carolina | Johnson & Johnson, Teva | Risperdal (J&J); Provigil, Actiq, Gabitril (Teva) | J&J is appealing a $327 million penalty awarded by a state judge in 2011 in a Risperdal lawsuit. The case is pending at the South Carolina Supreme Court. The state attorney general also sued Teva’s Cephalon unit in 2011, alleging it promoted drugs for unauthorized uses. Teva filed a counterclaim seeking to dismiss the lawsuit. The claims are pending. |
| Utah | GlaxoSmithKline | Avandia | The state sued Glaxo in 2010, making allegations similar to those of other states. |
| West Virginia | Sanofi, Bristol-Myers | Plavix | The attorney general sued companies in December, making allegations similar to the Mississippi case. The lawsuit was removed to federal court, where it is pending. |
———————-
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like